I have a suggestion.... Instead of slagging off each other on here, meet up in a pub (say) every two months and discuss face to face. I don't mean fistycuffs, I mean proper conversation. We all get pissed and can shake hands (like proper men do) with everyone we have disagreed with.
To an extent that's been done. It ended with promises that faded in the wind. You've only to look at the replies towards anyone who is seen as not being 100% pro trust receives to see why some are less than keen to be a part of them. See me, I reckon a good supporters representation with the club is an excellent idea. I just see ways of improving what's on offer.
I'd like to request an explanation from Mark why he thought posting the hip flask on Twitter was a good idea and if he still thinks it's funny. I'd also like to know if he thinks those actions are acceptable from the chairman of a supporters trust who need to build bridges with the family who own the club. Finally I wonder if he'd be prepared to apologise for the ill advised tweet and photo.
Oh and really finally, honest, I'd like to know what the current committee members think about the flask and what their honest opinions are on the Allams continuing as owners.
We have a rep from here on the FWG to take questions and hopefully bring back answers, but is there a rep from here on the trust? If not, should there be one?
As two of the moderators of this board are trust directors, I hardly think this board lacks representation.
I'm on my phone, can't quote as I'd like, so - Paragraph 1 - It's abuse when aimed at you. When you say it, it's a sharp observation? I don't think it quite works like that. Paragraph 2 - This is what I mean. What are you talking about? It sounds like breathless histrionics. Paragraph 3 - I'd love to be able to disagree, but it's hard to understand your point. I have more of an issue with your deliberate trolling of threads with cluttered word farts to be honest. I disagree with Chazz & Happys views almost always on this issue, but at least I am in no doubt what they think. Yours are impenetrable. That's all I'm saying.
Marvellous, so Happy has no need to ask on Twitter. It'll be interesting to see the reply. I do think, as the trust is posting a message on here asking for contributions and discussion, it'd be good if that happened on here too, without the needless personal abuse. Out of curiosity, how do the two board reps on here decide what our views are and what to take to the committee, and how do they feed that back to the board to let people know the outcome?
the trust have posted a message on here asking for comments. I've offered mine. Why people struggle with that is really their problem.
I don't take as big a role as a supporter as a lot on here so wasn't sure what had or had not happened previously. It appears most of the time on here that we do not support the same team. The Allams have created a fan versus fan. I have never known so much in fighting as we now have at City. ah well......to tonights game...come on u ulllll
That's alright then. I prefer dogs. Not the dogs left in the disco (showing my age) at 2am when you haven't copped off though
Off to the pub and then the match now. Let's kick seven bells of wotsit outta the cockney wideboys. 3-0 to City tonight.
I think what you say there helps highlight what I see as a fundamental difference between people in these sort of discussions. Some prefer a fans group to lead, to present schemes and act unilaterally. Others prefer a fans group to find out what fans think and want, and then to represent those thoughts to the people that matter. There are pros and cons to both, but at the minute, it seems we have a group doing the former, but claiming the latter. OLM's posts to Happy help highlight this. This thread started with the trust asking for input. Happy asked questions, and was told to do it himself. Fair enough, but the it's claimed we have two people on here representing us on the committee. One response has to be wrong. Anyone pointing out that the trust could do better, is seen as a problem, when in reality, they offer more than those just sitting back and letting others do it. I'd argue that the tone of some of the responses is a bigger factor in the disputes than much of what the Allams have said or done. I think most agree withnwhat's wrong, it's discussions on moving forward, or rather then refusal to have them, that leads to the abuse.
This was one of those times I hoped to be proved wrong. Despite the **** thrown around I would love to join an honest and open supporters trust that genuinely seeks to represent all fans and engages in dialogue. You have said all mechanisms are open for discussion, debate and questions. We have 2 members of the committee as mods here yet you still can't take reasonable questions back to your fellow committee members. Despite saying you would. I was hoping to be proved wrong with a "sure. Give me a week or so and I'll see what they say." Instead I get the expected cop out. Before you expect anyone else to change, including the owners, you need to take a real long hard look at yourselves. Unless of course you're ok with being the small group looking after their own interests you appear to be.
This new dialogue that's been opened is it per chance the same as the old dialogue? We hate you and you hate us?
